Harris was down 10 million votes compared to last election. The issue really is “why aren’t people voting for us”

Universal health care used to be something that was at least mentioned during campaigns, now not so anymore. Fracking, inhumane border policies to keep those crazed illegal immigrants out, explicit support for genocide; these are far right policies, and the dems are falling over themselves to support it. Every cycle they move further right.

That’s actually false. When it comes to policy preferences, the actual electorate swings pretty far left compared to the right wing and far right parties they can choose between. Universal health care, parental leave, paid sick leave, higher minimum wage all enjoy broad and firm popular support, and neither party is even talking about this.

These stats are about the policy preferences of the electorate, while OP is about the politicians. But your picture is a fantastic illustration as to why the democrats lost the election. It’s because they keep moving further right (look for example at their recent pro-fracking, pro-border wall, pro-genocide presidential candidate).

This is QAnon-level shit, but on the center right.

Russia is the bad guy in this conflict. 110%. But there’s no reason to start making up reasons why. Ukraine was not a neutral non-NATO buffer state after the euromaidan coup, and it doesn’t need to be for the annexation of Crimea and the ongoing invasion to be wrong, which they are. All made up reasons do is give your opponents ammunition.

“we promise ;)”

Fair enough, all good. I’m leaving mine up because I think the point about the conflation of anti-zionism and anti-semitism being in itself antisemitic bears repeating.

oh no, statistics that challenge my world view! Quick, let’s not look into it at all and move the goal posts!

Could you at least try to engage in this discussion? Or maybe come up with any evidence supporting your world view?

The part of the electorate that benefits from fracking, an even bigger border wall, children in cages at the border, and genocide is not big enough to move the needle. Plus, anyone who looks at those issues and considers them important is much more likely to vote for Trump anyway. Her platform was regressive dog shit, and that’s why people didn’t vote for her (and the genocide of course).

You can continue with the strategy of blaming the voters, but look where that got you. Just from a completely pragmatic perspective, look where that got you. The past three cycles you keep running candidates no one’s excited about, on essentially republican platforms, with the main selling point being that they’re not Trump (which is a veiled threat, at best). You managed to beat Trump only two out of the three times, and you had a massive pandemic helping you with the one time you did beat him with this strategy.

Eh, you know what, maybe you’re right. Let’s run on an even more right wing platform four years from now (maybe we can be anti-trans or whatever to attract more moderate republicans, like the 0% we managed to attract this cycle), let’s tell the voters they’re awful people if they vote for the other side, and maybe this time it’ll work

Hear hear! I mean, how dare they not vote for the democrats? Don’t they know how this works? Do they think the parties are supposed to “earn” their votes by campaigning for policies that will benefit the electorate? That’s fucking childish!

They lost the election by running an essentially republican candidate. Fingers crossed for a progressive chair.

There’s about 100 million evangelical christians in the US, and a LifeWay poll in 2017 showed that about 80% essentially considered themselves zionists. That’s 80 million. There’s 15.8 million jews worldwide. So the non-Jewish zionists outweigh Jewish zionists by a fair margin. Heck, they outweigh the zionist and the non-zionist jews taken together by a beefy margin, even.

If you’re equating the Jewish people with zionism, or conflating being in favor of zionism as somehow being benevolent to the Jewish people as a whole, you are treating the Jewish people as a monolith and are yourself being anti-semitic. Zionism is perfectly compatible with anti-semitism (see for example all those anti-semitic christians who enthusiastically support zionism), and anti-zionism is in itself not anti-semitic (cf Jewish voice for peace).

So making “zionist” a slur has nothing, absolutely nothing to do with being anti-anti-semitic or not.

The same way I don’t think we should capitulate to framing “cracker” as a slur, or to framing “black lives matter” as a racist thing to say, I don’t think we should capitulate to framing things like “from the river to the sea” or “zionist” as antisemitic.

But, as a thought experiment, let’s indulge in this doublespeak trash. What is a good alternative? So far I’ve got:

• Israeli colonizers
• Jewish supremacists
• genocidal sacks of shit
• Israeli apartheidists
• Isreal expansionists
• Israeli warmongerers
• people in favor of the genocide and apartheid committed by Israel (in full, every time you need to say zionist)
• modern day nazis
• zionazis (technically not zionist!)

So all of this liberal crybaby nomenclature trash aside, I actually do think “zionist” is in itself a fairly useless term for the Israeli apartheid question (as Norman Finkelstein and Judith Butler do too). While one faction of zionism pursued the nakba and massacres from fairly early on, and while this faction has been quite successful, there are other notions of zionism which do not entail murdering children or colonizing a country. When Netanyahu and Chomsky can both legitimately refer to themselves as zionists, I think it’s clear that zionism is too broad a term to be useful in the current ongoing genocide and the ethnic cleansing that has been going on for the better part of a century.

Oh my goodness you are in for a treat! Pourover coffee is in my opinion the best way to prepare a cup. Get yourself a v60, and the paper filters that go with it, watch a James Hoffman video on proper v60 technique, and enjoy. It should actually give a cleaner cup (less residue) than the French press.

Removed by mod

I totally agree, broken system and all. Still a free market. The free market is inherently a broken system.

So the fact that “more stats abt people living paycheck to paycheck” would convince you strongly, strongly indicates that I’m not explaining myself well enough. I’m not under the impression that if I did communicate effectively you would magically be convinced. And that’s not necessarily my goal, but I would like to be able to have a productive convo with you, so I’m gonna give it another shot.

Here’s two facts that I’m convinced of:

• if a consistent set of policies/campaign promises enjoy massive popular support across the aisle, then making such positions a core part of your campaign and your efforts when elected will give you a much higher chance of getting elected
• progressive policies (i.e., paid sick leave, parental leave, union-strengthening laws, universal health care, antitrust legislation, increasing solvency of social security, and so on (note that I do not mention culture war stuff)) enjoy broad popular support, across the aisle, in all states

If you believe these facts (and you don’t need to), then an unavoidable conclusion is that if Harris would’ve run a progressive campaign, she would’ve had a much higher chance of winning.

The weakness in my argument is the two facts I mentioned. They require evidence. I’ve given a smidge of evidence for the second fact (the smoking gun of the ballot measures in Missouri). A better way to go about it is to find some policy oriented polls targeting a good cross section of the electorate which show that people (R, D, and I) generally support progressive policies (think paid sick leave, think universal health care).

The first fact is much harder to prove, but I would argue that common sense gets you a long way here. But for a more empirical approach, look at the Sanders and Obamna campaigns and the fairly broad and enthusiastic support they enjoyed.

The reason I think I wasn’t explaining myself well enough is because the stats you’re asking for do almost nothing to support my argument. At best, they’re indirect, weak, evidence of the second fact. It shouldn’t convince you if I find you some stats about the working homeless and paycheck-to-paycheck livers.

EDIT: I feel like I understand a bit better where your response is coming from. You think that I’m arguing in favor of the effectivity of progressive policies, rather than the popularity. I happen to believe both, but we’re talking about why the dems lost, and in a democracy, the popularity of policies is what matters un such discussions, not their effectivity. Again, it’s a bit off topic, but for the effectivity you could look at the rate of homelessness and paycheck-to-paycheck situations in more progressively legislated and often poorer countries in western Europe. You’ll find that aside from popular (which is what matters here), these policies are also crazy effective.

The point that I’m making is that across the board, progressive policies are popular. And that does win elections, just look at Obamna’s and Sanders’ campaigns. That one state was just one extreme example of this fact.